25456 Federal ~~r Vol ~N~ ~t4.r/ .J;,h .. ~ .... s .. ~llY· .luJl~ 1989'/ Rules and Regulations 

- .- ;:.· .

.> .;.. ~~~~ ~ . .. --:-... . ; . . . .. ~~~~~~ '• . . . ~~~~~~~~~~ 

~ .,-the ·de inini'mis SCi- erilisaion e~ption . 

• ·-- froin proflibited·dispersion techniques. 

stack height rules for aew soorcn ou 

September 23. 1987l52 fR 357ot}). 

· · · ·Source:; we~e exempted {ro~ further 

review if they ren under tfu! . . . - . . 

r,..-

\t:(:·:. 

grandfatbering clause (i.e~ in existence 

before December 31, W70), if their a tacit 

height was less than de minimis stack 

hefght (65 m J, or if their actual height 

waa less than the calculated Good · 

Engineering Practice (CEPJ stack height. 

The remaining sources were then 

subjected to detailed review for ; 

confonnance with the revised 

rqulatfons. State submissions were to 

contain an evaluation of each stack and 

source~ the inventory. Mississippi bas 

indicated that the documentation is 

available for review at the State Office 

(listed above}.- - -

Final Action. EPA approves the 

declaration by Mississippi that recent 

revisions to EPA·s stack heigflt 

· regulations do not necessitate SIP 

revisions for specific sources in this ·state. 

The declaration does not apply tu. 

Mississippi Power-Daniel: South 

Mississippi Electric Power. HattiesburgMorrow; E.L Dupont. Delisle-Boilers 1 a 

2: and International Paper. Vicksburg. 

. ··-~ . , Op January 30, 1987, Mississippi 

· ·: ·.: sub~tted for EPA's approval 

· do~ntation for Good Engineering 

Practice (CEP) Stack tfei8bL EPA 

piioposed tO approve the declaration on 

February 18.1989 (54 PR 7069). At that 

Under section 307(b}{ll of the Act. 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 14,:1989. This- action -

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enfQrce its reqwremeuta. 

(See 307(b}{2.}.) 

·. · ,. time. the public was invited to submit 

written comments on the proposed 

· action. However, no comments were 

· · received. EPA is therefore approving the 

State's declaration that no e:nisaion · limitations were affected by stacJc height 

credit above GEP or any other · 

dispersion technique, except as the 

declaration applies to four sources 

identified below. . 

C

-·:. :. · On january 22. 1988. the U.S. Court of i · · appeals for the DistriCt of Columbia 

issued it• deciSion in NRDC v. ThomO$, 

The Office of Management and Budget 

bas exempted this rule from the 

requirements of Section 3 o( Executive 

Order 12291. 

List of Subjects in CO CFR Part 52 

·Air pollution controL 

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides. 

Dsted: May 28. 1989. 

Joe R. Fraumll!thes, 

Acting &gfonal :idmiiWtrowr. 

Part SZ of Chapter L Title .40. Code of 

Federal Regulatiorts. is amended as 

follows: · · ~38 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Dir. 1988]. regarding 

.the Eovfronmental Protection Agency's PART 52--[AMENDEDJ ' (EPA's} stack_ height regulations (50 PR 

21892. July 8, _1985); the court upheld Subpart Z-Mfs~fs'slpPf · ..•. _mos_t 0~ the_ rules, _but certain provisions 

., ·. were remanded to the EPA for further --l. The authority citation for Part 52 

-..-·:·'· condderation: 'A.a:ordingly, EPA is not "continues to read as follows: 

. acting oir fotir sources: Mississippi ' . . 

P n • 1: 5 th 1.1:~- • l El . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642. ·. · _. . . ower'Liante • ~ ~aastpp . ectric . . . 

· .·Power, Hafti~,btirg·¥cmow: E.L Dupont, . 2. Section 52.1.278 i• added to read as 

.Delisle-Boilers 1 a 2:' and Intemational follows; . , · ~ . · ,. .-: :, -; · 

. · ~per, 'Vichbut8 becii~ thef _. · ·. · . currentfY .. receive credit under one ·or the f 52.1271 · Controi stT.tegf: Sulfur oxides · provisions remanded to the EPA. .. • and partlcufate matter.' . ' ·. 

Mississippi and EPA will review these In a letter dated Ja~~ary 30,1987; the 

sources ~or campUance with any revised Mississippi Department of Natural 

.requirements when EPA completes . . Reao:.~rces certified that DO emasion 

rulemaki~g to respond to the NR:JC limits in the State's plan are bued on 

remand. · · · · · dispersion techn!qu~ not permitted by 

EPl'. &milw. EPA has re~ie~ed . . .. EPA's aleck height rules. This 

Mississippi a submittal and COnCurS With . certification does not appJy : 

the conclu3ion that no revisions to .. Miss :~aippi Power-Daniel; South 

Mississipp1s existing sonree emisaio~ Miuisaipp~ Electric Power. Hattir.sburglimitationa are necesaary as a result of Morrow; E.I. Dupont. Deli::!e Boilers 1 tt . · EPA'• reviaed stack height regulations. 2; and ln~e:national P~per. Vicksburg. 

: :· Mississippi has therefore met its [FR Doc. 119-t4Zl9 ·Filed a-14-89: a;

45 amJ . · . ._: obligationsundersectlon406ofPub.L - .. .-.... .,...._, ... , .· . 

-',!i;~'a~ · 9s-:95 for Uisting source 'emission 8II..Lrt ~ m•--1,0:& , 

$' 10~{-: H~~uons; ~EPA approved Miss1siippi'5 · · -· ._,,' 

&.g·~· ·· ~:~ !. :> '· ··._. ~ 

• • ! ' . • :. -. 

f· .. : 

40 CFR Part 52 · 

lFRL 3572-~ [TN-G4SJ 

Approv&:L and Promulgation of ~ 

Implementation Plana, T efV\esaee; 

Revisions to the Memphis and Shelby 

County Portion of the State 

hnplementation Plan 

AGENCY:)~nvirorunenlal Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

AC'nON' rma! rule. 

SUMMARY: On Juiy 7, 1986. the State of 

Tennessee submitted the Memphis and 

Shelby County regulatforu (Board Order 

17-86) as a revision to the Slate 

Implementation Plan (SIP}. The . 

regulations tor Memphis and She !by 

County were originally approved by 

EPA in 1972 as an appendix fo the SIP. 

Since that time the regulations have 

been revised HVeral times and today 

EPA is approving the regulations that 

are approvabht and disapproving the 

regulations that are unapprovable and 

taking no action on those regulations 

that w_ere never approved or 

disapproved for the State. 

DATES: This action will be effective on 

August 14. 1989 unless no!ice is received 

by July 17, 1989 that someoae wishes to 

submit adverse or citical comments. II 

the effective date is delayed, timely 

notice will be published in the Federal 

Register. · 

ADDRESSD: Copies of materials 

submitted by the State may be 

~fned during normal business hours 

·at the following locations: 

Public Information. R8fere~ Unit. 

_Librar}t §ystems BraDCb.. . · . Environmental Protection Agency. 401 

· M. Street. SW .. Wasbingto~ DC · 20480 ' .. . . .. . 

Enviro~ntal Prot~~ii Agency. 

· Resfon IV. 'Air Programs Branch. 345 

Courtland Street. NE.. Atlanta, GA . 30385. . . . . 

Division of Air Pollution ControL 

Tennessee Department of Health and 

Environment, Customs House 4th 

Floor, 701 Broadway. Nashvii!e. 

Tennessee 37219. . 

Memphis and Shelby County H~lth 

Department. Air PoUution Cootrol. 814 

Jefferson Avenue. ~emphis. 

Tennessee 38105. · 

FOR FURTHER INFO~MATlON CCNTACT: 

Ms. Rosaly:1 D. Hughi!s, Air Programs 

Branch, EP~ Region IV, at the. above 

address nnd telephone number (404) 

347-2.864 or FTS 25i-21!1H. 

SUPPU.~ENTAAY IN~RllllATION: In 19€7, 

the Memphis and Shelby CoWlty H~talth 

Department developed regulations for 

lhc r.ontrol of air pollu!io:t. In lt'7Z. the 
.. . .. ... li/~. ~~;.~ (:t" .. ... . ·. :. • • .. . . • .... ...... _,,,. ______ .... .. ..... ·'~·~....;!' c... ; ·. ; 

Federal Register/ VoL ~.:..NCi. l14 '.f ThUrSdil~~ J,ine~:J989Ll:.BuleS.~([Rtijiil8~~ ~i2SID 

, State of Tennessee. submitted its Stale Section 1&-47-Abbrt~Yiation8, Acronyms IT 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the · Symbols . 

conlro~ of air.·pollutlon. On May 31, 1972 Section 18-48--Worda. Phrose8-Substitutecl 

{37 FR t0842.at 10894) EPA approved the , in Slate Rllaulatio,. Adopted by 

SIP for Tennessee. The SIP contained a &fert~na · ~on1~penBwmmg section that recognized the Air Pollution Section 18-51-&VIIrabi/ity of Parts of Control Section of the Memphis "8nd · Articles · . · · 

Shelby Co~ty Health Depa~ent ai 5\ction 1e-s&-Noti~: Citation: Injunctive . 

the local agency for air pollution control &lief 

and included a control strategy . . Section 18-57-Pena/tiu. Misdemeanor. 

demonstration along with the Health Civil. NoncomplianCII 

Department regulations. Since thai time. Section 1e-s&-Varicurc:e. 

the Memphis and Shelby County Air Section 18-59-EmelJIIncy Powers of Health 

Pollution Control Section (Memphis) has Sect~'f!f.::.11-ef'tl0ted: Membersh~o: Term 

revised the regulations. Memphis • of Office: Jurisdiction: Hearings: ApptJaiJ adopted certain portions of the Stale Section 1&-~onp1'0CIIs8 Emiuion 

regulations, revised their old reguiations • Standards (State rqula!fo~ 1.~) 

and recodified·the-air pollutfon control -- SeCtion 1~Volatile Oijanic . 

section·. of the Memphis and Shelby Compound'.· (State a~on 1200-3-

. County Code accordingly. . 18) · . .:~- · . The new regulations were submitted Section ~6-84-Partrculate ~otter from 

to EPA by the State of Tennessee as a lncrneraton . - ·· ·- · : · 

SIP . . Section 16-85-Requtf'tld Samp!Jng, revtsto!' (Board O~der 17-86) on July Recordlfll and &porting (State 7. 1986_. This s~ reviston ~as not ' rqulatlon 1200-3-10) ·.· - processed earlier because tt w..s unclear Section t~lllhods of Sampling and 

which Memphis/Shelby County Analysis (State regulation 1200-3-tZ) regulations had already been approved Section 1&-81-Limits on Emis•ion• du~ to 

as part of the Tennessee SIP. Abo, EPA Malfunctions. Startup8 and Shutdowns 

had to determine if the previous control ... (State regulation l.ZO()-.}-ZO) 

strategy demonstrations were adequate '. Sec~on 1&-39-FugitiVII Dust . . . in protecting the National Ambient Air · Section 16-flO--General Alternative Emissron 

~ Q 1. s d d ~ Standards (State rqulation 1200-3-Zl) ua tty tan ar s (NAAQ~}. Once the Section 16-81-Lead Emiuion Standard$ t federally approved Memphis/Shelby (State regulation 12(1()..3-22) . County portion of the Tennessee S . . · ·· · ~ ~ . ... 

i was compiled and the previous control Sec.tions 16-?6 ~d 1~1 ar~ the New i strategy .demor.strations were dee me . So~e Pe:fo~O!I:~~ Sla_IJiiaras and 

adequate, EPA decided to approve the ~ Hazardous Air Contamznants, . . . . Memphis/Shelby regulations as a -~ respectively. These standards, which 

transf~r. ~f enforcement authority from · ~ are ilot part of the ~IP. a~ subdelegated 

the State to the .locaL The following . to Memphis by ~eState. . 

conditions i.nd conclusions were used to In Section 16-77, Construction and 

aqive· at this deCision: . . Operating Permits (State regulation . 

:1. ~e:J;o~l·~tion5 must be ·equal ~} all po~ons are app~vable to the CC?rrespondlJ:lg fe~er!lllY approved except the folloYI1D8 rules which are not 

State regulations. ·· . · approvable because they. a_re . · 

2. .The loc;at regulations cannot be . inconsistent with EPA regulations and 

treated al separable trom the SIP, which policies: . 

the Stat~ ~~~piits and i~plements, but ~.01(3) 

must be consu;lered part of iL 1~.01{4)(o)(2) 

· 3. Te~~!~ee ~~~law ~uires that No ··action will be taken on the 

the local ~lations be equtvalent to ?r following because they are not part of 

not less stringent than the correspondmg . the federally approved regulations for State regulation: therefore, Tennessee th Stat . must certify to EPA that each regulation e . ~· has been reviewed by the State and .. ~.ot(4)(b}(6) the last phrase 

found to" meet this requiremenL '· 

· 4. Tennessee inust retain overall 

authority and responsibility for 

developing and implementing. including enfon:ing, the SIP. ·.:' ·. 

·EPA compared the federally approved State regulations and the federally 

approved Memphis regulations to 

determine the approvability of the 

Memphis regulations. A summary of the 

review·foUows. · · ·· , .. ,. ·. .. . .· · 

· ·These seetions are approvable in their 

entirely: 

• Note: EPA Rqion IV notln.d both the 

Tennesate and MemphU .,end•• of the SIP 

deviations that have been Identified within the 

Volatile OJ1tnic Compounds Rqulation (Seeticin 

1&-410) and the need for their conectlon In a letter 

dated November 8. 1981. The devlatioM. however, 

do not affect the approvabillty of~· Volatile 

Orpnlc Compounda Replatlon few Mempbia becaun appiovabillty of the local replatlona is 

baled on a transfer of enforcement authority of 

federally approved resU!ilttoM. which Include the 

Volatile 011anic Compolinda Rtplatlon. from the 

State lo the local Ooce TenniPet baa c:Orrected 

thon deviations identifled by EPA. Memphis will 

adopt the corncted f'el\lltUon by reference. 

~.OZ(1H3), (6Ht0) and·. the tilst 

section of(S) - · : · · · ... 

1zoo..3-9..:.03(2) the last sentence , ( -:; 

1200-3-&-.00(5)' . . .. ' 

In Section 16-82, Sulfur Oxide · · i::;-;: 

Emissions (State ~ation 1200:-3-141, 

these rules are approvable because they 

are identical to th~ federally approved 

State regulation: . 

1200-.3-14-.01 

~14-03(1HS) and (8H9) 

No action will be taken on the 

following rules because they are not 

part of the federally approved State 

regulations: · 

1~14-.02 

1.200-3-!'4-.03{5) and (6) 

Section 16-M. Nuisance Abtlteme.'!t, 

was: originally approved as part of the . 

SIP ~ 1972. Since that time Memphis J 

has added a p~ragraph (b) dealiDg with . 

odor j,ollulion which EPA will not take 

action on at this tilDe. Paragraph (a~ was 

approved and fa reapprovable. ·-· 

. In Section 16-83, Visible Emissions 

(State regulation 120G-3-5), these are 

approvable because they are part of the 

federally app~ved State regulation: 

01 (l)·and (4) 

1~03{1) 

1200-3-5-.04 

No actfon will be taken on the 

following rules because they are ·not c 

part of the federally approved State :~ 

regulations: · · · ~ 

1200-3-5-.01 {2) and {3) 1200-3-5-.D% . . . 

12~.03(2) 

12~.05 '·· · .. · .. 

In Section 1&-:-78, Pl'()Qss Emissions 

Standalds (Stataregulation ~7), 

these rules are approvable beCause they 

are federally approved rules for the 

State: · · · · · ·· :: · · 

1~7-.01 

1zoo.4-7-..o2 . UQ0-3-7-.00(1) : ... ' . . . . 

1.201).:.3.-7-.cM {1) arid.(2) except the last 

sentan~ . · · . . · .. . 

1~7-.05 

1~7-.06 

~7-.D7{1) 

1200-3-7-.08 . 

1200-3-7 10 .. ·_ . . . . .. . ... 

1200-3-7~.11 ' - '. · ... ·.. ... .·: · .. - 1zoo.3:-7~.1~ . I • . ••: • . ,. 

No action will be taken on the 

following rules because they aie not 

federally approved for the Stale: 

1200-3-7-.0S{%) . .. . . 

1zoo.:.3-7-.D4{2) the last sentence 

1200-3-7-.o7(2HSl 

1200-3-7-.~ . . . . . .. . e-,.. Section 16-49, Ambient Air Quality, ;:;:~· 

Standards (Stale fegulalion 1200-3-3' · 

approvable in Its entirety, except for · ., 
/_ ~ 

. ;~ 25458 ~~eral .Jtesist:e.r / Vol. No. .U4 J. 1'luusdaY\··Juna -15. 1989 / R~Ies ·and Regu)ations .. 

last sentence in -OS. on which 

no action will be taken. 

In Sec:tion 16-48. Definitions, all the 

definitions are identical to the federally 

approved State regulatiol)a except for 

the dafiDillona of modification. new 

source aDd new'sulluric acid planL 

These definitions. however. were found 

to be equivalent to the State's 

definitions and are federally 

approvable. 

F"maiAdion 

Since the Memphis regulation• (Board 

Order 17-88) a~ corai1tent with EPA 

policy and requirements, they are 

hereby approved except for the 

followina rules that are daapproved: 

1.~,01(3) 

1200-3-9-.o1(4)( 0 )(2) 

Th~ public should be advised that this 

action wiU be effective 110 day• from the 

date of thi1 Federal Repstu notice. 

However. If notice is received within 30 

· days that someone wishes to submit 

advel'M or critical comments, this action 

will be withdrawn and two subsequent 

notices will be published before the 

effective date. One notice will withdraw 

the final action and another will begin a 

new rulemaking by announcing a 

proposal of the action and establishing a 

conunentperioCL · 

Under section 307(b}(1) of the Act. 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate · 

circuit by [60 days from date of 

publication~. This action may not be 

challenged ater in proceedings to 

enforce ita requirements. (See 307(b}(2).) 

R~Proces. 

. U~r the Regulatory Flexibility Act' 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), EPA must assess tha . 

impact of proposed rules on small 

entities. Theae rules are ~quivalent to· 

the federally approved State regulations 

and ma~nta~. the status quo. Sourcea . 

have not bem jdverse!y affected by the 

State regulations; therefore the . 

conclusion can be drawn that small 

sources in Memphis and Shelby County 

will not be adversely affected by this 

decision. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has waived review of this action. 

normally required under ExecUtive 

Order 12291. 

List of Subjects i.n 40 CFR. Pad 5Z 

Air pollution control. earlxm 

Monoxide. Hydrocarboaa.lncorporation 

by reference, lntergovemmental 

relations, Lead. Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone. Partieuhate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. Sulfur 

oxldes. 

Note: lnc:orpon~tion by reference of the 

· 

TSlate Implementation Plan for the State of 

wu epprond by the Dinldor of 

the Fedaal ....._. CJD }11ly 1. 1911%. 

Dated: April 24. 1989. 

Lee A. Oeffilm.. m. 

Acting ll6aional Admini1trotor. 

Part 52 of Chapter L Title 40. Code of 

Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52·-{AMEHDEDJ 

Subpart RR-Tennessee 

1. The authority citation for Part U 

continues to read as follows; 

Autbodty: u u~ 7401~ 

2. Section 52.2220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(89) to read aa 

follows: 

f 52.2220 ldendfk:aUon of plan. 

• • • • 

(c) " • • 

(89) Revised Memphia and Shelby 

County regula tiona (Board Order 17~6) 

submitted on July 7. 198&. 

(i) lncorporation by reference. 

(A) M~mphis and Shelby County 

regula tiona. Board Order 17~ which 

became State-effective June 18. 1988. 

The regula tiona that are approved are as 

follows: 

Section• 18-48 

Sections 1&-17 

Sections 18-48 

Sections 1&-48 except for lal• 1zoo...3..3-.0S 

(the lut ~tntmce} 

Sectioaa 18-50 

Sections 1W1 

Sectiooa 1&-86 

Sectioa.a 1&-57 

Sections is-sa ·. Sectiom 1&-SV 

Sectioml&-71 

Sections 18-n except for Rulaa 1~ 

V.01(3): 12ro-3-9-.D1(4}(bJ(eJ(Ihe pm.se. . • .ucept the activitiet of aay v-L ") . 120()-3..t-.D1(4)(o)(2); 1200.3-9-.02(1)-

(3),(1H10) and the raet ~tnrence or (5): 

· 120()-3..t-.o3(2)(tblut sentmar). · 

.G3(2K•J. and .03(2J{b) 

Sectiom 18-711 except lor Rules 1~7-

JJ3(~ 1.20().4-7-.ot(2)(the lut Mntence): 

. t~7-.07(2H5): 1200-3-7-.09 

Sectlon1 18-7V 

Sections 18-10 

Sections 1a.:az uapt for lala 1200-3-H- .OZ: l2110-3-14-.o3(5) and (8) 

Sectiocu 15-83 c.~ept for Rulu 1~ 

.01(2) ~tnd (3}: 1200-3-5-.03(.:) 

Section• 18-84 

Sections t&-a;; 

Sectionst&-as 

Sections 18-87 

Sections ta-te axcept para.,aph(bJ 

Section• 18-ISI 

Seetiona 1&-00 

Sectiona 16-9\ 

(B) Letter or July 7. 1988. from the 

Tennessee Department or Health and 

Environment. 

(ii) Other material-none. 

3. A ne\¥ § 52..2229 is added to read aa 

foDows: · 

I 52..2229 Rules and r~ulrions. 

(a) The following portions of the 

revised Memphis and· Shelby County 

regulations submitted on July 7, 1986. are 

disapproved because they are 

inconsistent with EPA policy and 

requirements: 

16-77, Rules ~.D1(3); t~ 

.ot(4)(o}(2) 

(b) (Reserved} 

(FR Doc. 89-14154 Filed 6-14-8: 8:45 ami 

I&JJNG coot ........ 

40 CfR Part 60 

(FAL-3602~1 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts for Business t.lachlnes; 

Clarification 

AGENcr. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA}. 

ACTIOIC Final rule. clarification.. 

SUMMARY: This notice clarifies a final 

rule od standards of performance for 

new stationary soarces for surface 

coating of plastic parts for business . 

machines which appeared at page 2876 

in the Faden~) Rep.ter of Friday, Janury 

29, 1988 (53 FR 2678). 

This action Ia necessary in order to 

· clarify that electromagnetic interference 

and radio fr_equency interference (F:Ml/ RFI) shielding coatings that are applied 

to the surface of plastic business 

machine parts to attenuate EMI/Rfl 

signals weT1! intended to be exempt from 

the regulation. 

EFFECTtVE DATE: January ~ 1988. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug Bell or Laura Butler. Standa.rds 

Development Branch. ESO (MD-13}. U.S. 

Environmental Protectioa A,mcy. 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 

27711. tel!!phone (919} 541-5568 or (919} 

541-5Z67. 

IUPPUIIEHTARY INFORUAllON: The 

EMiiRFl shielding coatings were 

exempted because none of the options 

studied provided volatile organic 

compound emission control ala 

reasonable coal 1.-.a dennition of prime 

coat specifially e."<cluded EMI/RFl 

coatings to avoid erroneoua 

consideration of E.\.li/RFl coatings as 

prime coatings.